What is done is done. Nobody now can change this decision. However many are still wondering what the city would look like if another choice were made.
So how much better would Florence be if a metro system was under construction instead of the tram railways? Answering this million dollar question is surely not up to us, but then again it is natural to make comparisons and observations about the status of the facts. What is clear is that the uneasiness that Florentines had to undergo in the past 5 years should get people and politicians thinking about future projects. Back in the days, when it still had to be decided how to go about the transportation system in the capital of Tuscany, the project of constructing a subway was abandoned right away and citizens were given the justification that it could not have been done due to the remains and ancient ruins that are still laying in the Florentine underground.
Nevertheless rumours about a Chinese project of building a subway structure 100 meters underneath the city were circulating around, thereby these “notorious ruins” would have been saved. The project was expected to be completed within the subsequently 5 years and it was entailing 6 different routes. If the rumours were proven to be true and the government knew about it, why has it still been decided to build railways in the middle of the tiny Italian roads creating a revolution in the city traffic planning?
Although it must be admitted that trams have indeed some advantages over the subway. First of all railways on the surface are easier to be built. They don’t need such a consistent deployment of tools and caterpillars that instead the underground system would require. Another advantage, might be the homeless and dirt contingencies. In cities such as NYC, London and Moscow, the underneath tunnels are providing housing to immigrants and illegal smugglers who find it as their own shelter. However it is worth pointing out that a small city like Florence does not present the same emergencies in terms of gang wars and smuggling problems as much as the above cited metropolis do. One of the main difference then is the construction costs, which might result much lower than subway’s. However, the list of pros for the tram system can be considered much slimmer than the list of cons. It is faster to create, it can better be connected and it can reach out to the perimeter of the city in a more efficient way. Maintenance costs are also lower because the trains and rails are never weather-beaten. Stoppages due to snow and traffic chaos would then be avoided. As far as agility in terms of transportation, the experiences of other cities tell us that most of the time trains can be deemed more punctual and without inconveniences. What then stands out from this overall comparison is not just whether or not a tram system should have been done, but it is more about whether or not the Florentine government should have listened to what people wanted. A good example could be the referendum that occurred in Brussels Belgium. In that case all the people of the city were called up to vote on whether they wanted trams or subways. They finally decided for trams, but at least it was a democratic decision. Why then, if a project for an underground transportation system was already laid out, didn’t the government consider even listen to the citizens’ voices? Was it just a matter of construction costs? After all we should ask people how much being stuck in traffic or being late at work cost them in last five years.
James C.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento